I've heard many explanations of the receptacle but no one has ever said:

Quote:

He is not saying much in that passage and sometimes that just has to be acceptad about Plato.

and surely the very last description of anything in Plato is 'stream of consciousness'. Strange also that you should say later that 'this stream is from god', then follow it up with:

Quote:

you will never understand him if you assume that every word is sacred

which kind of contradicts what you have just said.

But like you I also would deny that his every word is sacred for that sounds more like religion than philosophy. The beauty of Plato/Socrates is that you can take them as men, mebbe wise men but certainly not gods.

I am going to leave this for others to respond to. The problem is that I'm having trouble understanding much of what you are saying.
Pete

Well, Yuri, now you are becoming to be a familiar type who visits this forum.
It starts off friendly, but gradually they begin to inform everybody how they are wrong. A particularly familiar trope is:
"You are having trouble with much of what you are saying" or "you don't know how to reason"
Then at some point a troll-like being jumps out, and a full-blown rant is in progress and words like 'imbecilic' etc begin to appear . Then I take you off the forum for not behaving yourself. Then you can go and plague another forum (in a good way of course )
Pete

OK, Yuri, it's true that you shouldn't have to take the flack for others misdemeanours, and I'm truly sorry if I pegged you wrong. You might feel that you are unable to continue with me, and that's alright, I'll step aside. But if, however you wish to go forth with me on this conversation can I first mention something you said which I do find interesting. Can you expand on what you mean by "central vision" and that this does not take place "in our skulls". I think that needs a little explaining. It would be interesting to discuss Aristotle's approach to this.

These things happen - furthermore within a short time i was manipulating the situation so there no need for you to take too much responsibility - in fact - you had been wound up previously i can see that - situation neutral - didn't impugn anyone.

Yes - this rather crude description of mine about central vision that could not possibly be within the vessel of the skull - where for all i know this is already taken for granted by plato students. I just haven't seen any remarks which indicate this.

To mention - nobody knows how the retina works as such and it is a holy grail. It is believed in science that if more was known it shall open up huge new paradigms blah blah blah/ Most people have the straightforward conceptualization of sight being something that is processed by eyes and is run as a projection within / by the tissues of our minds.

Now really this is quite impossible - but of course the empirical situation has a great stronghold here.

Hypothetically speaking it is more likely that the screen on which the retina projects is a quantum mechanical one in time - space - or just select your more school of economic science correct term.

In the Objective Idealism Context - this could mean just a bit more than ( if you will forgive me ) - it has seemed to me it has been conceptualized as. For consider - even Plato may not have realized, but the forms can actually be the driving force behind how all of vision works - not just an impeccable original able to use all connective-('ness') through a subatomic potential energy which produces the infinite replicas.

Respectfully to you

Yuri

Oh sorry PS ( according to him )

Imho Plato could have realized the implications since the theory of forms is entirely what is needed

Rudi,
Plato was fascinated by vision, and so also Aristotle. If we take Aristotle's view he couched nearly everything in his philosophy in terms of potency and act. Regarding perception, a tree is an object that has the ability to be seen. That is its dunamis or potential. The eye is an organ that has the potential to see, and when the two come into meaningful contact, the tree acts upon the potential of the eye making it a seeing eye. The Greeks liked to think of events as the coming together of active and passive forces (dunameis).In this case the tree is active and the eye is passive. The act of seeing then is a combination of the two, or, more accurately, the seeing is single but has these active and passive aspects. The real question is - who sees? It is not the eye, which (including retina) is an organ of sight - no more. The answer seems to be that the information from this faculty passes to the individual soul, which, I suppose in modern terms, is the repository of consciousness. In School terms it is the jiva that immediately perceives, but behind this immediate seeing it is the self, the atman, who is the ultimate witness.

Ahh - it is in focus @ last - it was always there to be discussed right ?

Not essentially the soul since it is an entire thing - perhaps the individual part required is conscience as the segment of incarnation that shall be added to the soul eventually - again & again perhaps.

Thus i would look to conscience concerning the active element in perceptual vision according to the way the logic flows and the human predicament of the incarnate.

In such ways of thinking the Retina will only decode light yes - it knows not a wit about vision. I say 'retina' peter as the rest of the eye is irrelevant.

The reason why i cited self organized criticality is that once this sort of architecture is suggested (TTOF ) you then need a means to deliver an active to a passive as per the whole metaphysic in question. As it happens passives and actives ( along with pauses ) must follow in rapids in this logic - on/off - on/off - pause - in stupendously infinitely sized amounts etc. This is the crux of the flux of universal energy, it is working with the finest scaled things in amounts that us humans really cannot cope with if it came to chasing such amounts.

However - the logic only just begins here since looking towards the Sun - another of Plato's fixations, something is delivering light arrays. SOC if using a science term when applied to light, -being a sequence of protons 'in the image of the image'. However by whatever name that situation needs to be named - it is esential to objective idealism to have our sense of the forms arriving @ the retina for this sort of logic to have its continuum.

I do not make logical errors Pete - the reason for the above is that it must not violate the parts of the theory of evolution that is proven ( forget the other nonsense ). There are certain essential minimums which all schools of study require no matter how much there is temptation to assign things to the gods for alternatives without the rite of passage justification. Many of the matters science claims for itself are the physics of gods no more no less yes - but you know how valuable a long unbroken integrated metaphysic is i'm sure. The is great risk of folly here by not being discerning enough with parts of rational theory's which needs to be accepted - but i digress and do not mean to be didactic.

In this case self organized criticality is really the only way i have to explain how evolving organism obtain eyes since the continuous photo bombardment onto flesh can do so and fulfill all other requirements.

SOC on the physical scale where it shows us sand tipping points as in an hour glass has little to do with this until you see subatomic particles in that situation. Then - it is about packaged sequences of binaries which 'peak and break down' - because they must since their only purpose is finitum unless observed.

I.E - the steams are inert until an observer puts interference in

Interference = conscience = a position in space - time.

Otherwise a stream of light protons that has deflected onto an object has got no reason to organize - they will not do it to point of 'criticallity' they are not governed by physical laws as sand is in the common SOC demo.

The retina possibly causes ( passively )- the criticality because it gives the photos a short cut through space time. The force to do so is active in the sequence here if so. We could extrapolate this by wondering if forms held together by photon electric charges seek to find there way back to source -The Original. But that might be going too far because we'd have a quantum gravity premise ( almost ) - which is another discussion

So - another twist in the potential definition is that Proton arrays seeks the shortest route through space time - or time space - or ..

Can you see why they are attracted to the retina? - if the theory of forms is true it provides a shortcut .

What a design if so

If - Criticality - is more than its banal looking self on these levels it is an elegant natural design since it avails sequences of light which make forms appear to that which has consciousness through conscience

There is no reason in this logic that a creature with no conscience shall need perceptual vision. If however it happens that persons observe this in tiny creatures - bees show a conscious by making honey - then they shall surely have it.

In the plant kingdom the act of producing such live giving elements looks like conscience also - if it is it places a far more potent complexion that merely stating plants have 'consciousness' - this is much closer to things revealing themselves

One of the problems with making new contacts is understanding terminology. I'm not sure what you mean by 'conscience' here:

Quote:

Not essentially the soul since it is an entire thing - perhaps the individual part required is conscience as the segment of incarnation that shall be added to the soul eventually - again & again perhaps.

Thus i would look to conscience concerning the active element in perceptual vision according to the way the logic flows and the human predicament of the incarnate.

I misread at first, thinking you meant 'conscious', but you repeat it. Perhaps you could explain the meaning of the above a little more clearly.

There's rather a lot on this post, so I'll comment only where I feel competent to. Maybe some of it will clarify in time.

I like what you say about the retina decoding light, I would say attracting Shape (morphe) towards Form (eidos). We see Shape but Form 'looks back' at the perceiver. A subtle differentiation which I take (maybe somewhat daringly!) from the original meaning of eidos, a 'look'. I think it works though, for we never actually see the form, as such.

There are many things of interest here, yet I do not feel we have earned the right to discuss them until we have laid the ghost of the enlightenment view of the universe to rest. There is no soul if such a construction were to be taken as the ultimate reality. It makes a mockery of Platonic notions of soul, and rather leaves consciousness in a quandary, as if it were a kind of gas scattered through the universe. Not that this view would have been unfamiliar to Plato and Socrates, for the pre-Socratics were embedded in atomic theory and the such-like. They thought such things as conduct were to be treated as kind of 'add-ons' whereas Plato saw a Cosmos not separate from nous, the divine, and the Good (agathos).

Perhaps this is a good place to stop. One does not want to out-write one's welcome.

I'm hardly using any terms Pete and i know what they all are. But what does the school teach about Plato's logic - are they are infallible truths ?

I have never had that impression - yet - more that in TSOES it is one of the most passionate debates that exists.

What are the children in the learning schools expected to believe - is their non compliant psych phenomena the poltergeist of the zeitgeist the ghost of the enlightenment of the gas ?

The problem with the word & entity such as conscience is that prevailing perception of it is too grounded in or perhaps undermined as a insignificant psych quantity only - not something applicable in universal terms. If that is the sense with conscience under those limits then perhaps it simply does not suffice it or is completely overlooked.

I hear you - most do see it as a relatively irrelevant area of the psych indeed.

The River Lethe makes the lesson of forgetfulness clear. Thus if others want to struggle this i do not - if the soul is separated from the mortal by forgetfulness, - then there is no good reason to assume attachment to the whole - would you seriously debate contrary to that ?

What reach of the psych will be capable of covering the implication ?

Is the Tripartite the model of the soul the one which is quintessential & infallible ? - that does not have to be a problem unless there is a religion of completeness about it.

The difficulty with that model is that it is significantly in conflict with reincarnation unless explained further. We know Plato went on to discuss immortality soon afterwards. Therefore unless one of the T 3 can be said to hold the present mortal state we have logical problems.

I have found Forgetfulness - and that does not indicate anything other than separation. Furthermore have not encountered a description of a constantly updating soul - a state where its status is described as informing as it goes along

It makes no metaphysical sense for a mortal to be acting within their all of their soul concerning the singular incarnate predicament they are in - on many many levels Plato or no greek of stature discussed past lives contained within same incarnate soul unless ( perhaps ) for entertainment.

Unless somebody wants to work with a conscience which acts upon all previous existence - i dont. We'd be going into difficulties is we state that the universe lacks the elegance

It can easily be argued that creation would not require incarnates with souls ever to have been possessed of a human brain to work by the theory of forms as a perceptual structure. TTOF's ( as they are described ) can perform those tasks without such an organ by virtue of what it is described as

Once that is deduced it raises the the question of the physical brain and its existence. If vision can be made another way - what it is there for - unless to process chemically. In this instance there isn't much left than our feelings and emotions for a reason.

Why would that be needed ( struggle ) - unless creation intended this to be the process & means to supply the records of the particular incarnate soul essence ?

If a deliberate struggle isn't creation's intention ( upon the incarnate ) - creation could have gone straight to Spirit and left it there. Creation created Spirit firstly in any case, we did not require a incarnate struggle, body or physical brain without a crucial reason other than preception.

The brain is there no question - but how would TTOF's be performing screenings ( including Plato's forms ) onto living tissue where no such events are remotely evident in any logic or empirical evidence? ?

In the Plato context ?

Are we natural selection denying as well ? - it will not help - incompetent in that way will long term damage to the study

To ask if there is perceptual vision - is to ask if there is TTOF's as it is a perceptual structure - the physical brain is using analog (mesoscopic ) - logic which cannot be reconciled with a means to transmit soul energy into space time.

Problem problems - one day someone will demolish the school metaphysics unless the logics meet properly

Plato or not - the logics will break down unless a suitable architecture of the soul is used. Something has to denote the vessel that shall be added to eternal soul that is reincarnating - otherwise no less than the human brain itself is unaccounted for.

Why would the Conscious be appropriate rather than the conscience ?

The conscious is useful during incarnation but it has no idea of our true essence - it only 'Reckons' and makes countless errors. Neither has the unconscious the means, nor the subconscious. Surely the conscience is the only portion from the entire incarnate consciousness psych form to have the true record of that essence held in spirit life force form over a temporary measure.

Capable of transposition to the soul

Logically it needs to be a component within Tripartite I.E Spirit and all is well since surely 'Spirit' without further description is an empty hypothesis

Thus my best conclusion is that either Plato intended 'Spirit' to be explained further or he is wrong

That is why i conclude Conscience in the context i have

Yuri

Perhaps this is a good place to stop. One does not want to out-write one's welcome.

Excuse me ? - can you rephrase that Pete ? - i'd happily not type another word here and begin my work elsewhere

?

Last edited by Yuri Leonardas on Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total

Yuri,
You intersperse what you say with such terms/acronyms/abbrev. (?) as TTOF, TSOES, T 3. What do they mean?

Quote:

Perhaps this is a good place to stop. One does not want to out-write one's welcome.

merely means, I'm a bit bushed and need to get an early night.

Quote:

Surely the conscience is the only portion from the entire incarnate consciousness psych form to have the true record of that essence held in spirit life force form over a temporary measure.

Ah, I think I see. It is from conscience that ethics and morality arise. Just to be conscious is not enough. The conscience transacts, in Platonic terms, with the higher faculties of the soul.

The word 'spirit' is also another term that we might need to agree on. I tend not to use it because it gets mixed up with Christianity. Spirit to Plato is not so elevated. The word is thumos and it tends to follow desire when according to Socrates it would best follow reason. As this is a Plato forum and I am trying to frame my remarks Platonically. I can give you references in the Dialogues but only if you wish.

I never think of Plato in terms of fallibility/infallibilty. I do consider him an exceptionally wise and influential thinker. The motto of this forum is 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. That to me is a wise statement. Today's 'right' might be tomorrow's 'wrong'. We are always rewriting our morality. Is conscience fully aligned to soul or is it looking over its shoulder in order to comply or not comply with the current belief systems? You mentioned Lethe. In the Myth of Er Socrates talks of the man who seemed virtuous but when the Lots were thrown down for his next embodiment he grabbed at the life of a tyrant. "He lived his (previous) life in a well ordered state but owed his goodness to custom and habit and not philosophy" Socrates explained. Lethe is symbolically the river that washes all remembrance of former lives from the newly aspiring soul. Whether one takes this as merely a 'likely story' or as some kind of reality 'prophesied by a seer' is beside the point. The muthos still intends a moment of high seriousness in the soul. "There comes a moment, dear Glaucon, where everything is at stake."

These are, among others, topics for philosophy, but our world view has altered greatly since the advent of the Enlightenment and that's why terminology needs to be carefully regarded.

Pete

Last edited by Peter Blumsom on Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

Am not so sure there is such a great difference with the christian outlook on the subject of spirit since each human spirit are fairly clearly described as a humanity worth of individual outposts of the 1 holy spirit - (or ghost). They have an Avatar ( Jesus the son ) and the Father himself.

And there are a lot of christian believers in the TSOES i found.

Plato does not seem to have discussed conscience much, and perhaps it was entwined in his unity of virtues. Secondly as a concept today i'd feel that conscience is something that many might limit to being seen as having an ending within the conscious. The mind goes about its life long chores about its morals and ethics but it does not have to have this finite conscious mind process related to those conscientious endeavours.

But tbh - if something is not chosen for a role like this there is simply no answer available to the nurse & the receptacle - the substance doing it can be labelled as we wish as a neuro linguistic label is there for human communication reasons and the substance shall routinely do what it does regardless. Thus maybe there is a suspicion here that missing ancient greek nomenclature exist in todays present ones or did after greece - which is why i have refused to limit this to platonic terms. For instance - maybe you'd avoid the term Synderesis because it comes from scholastic philosophy but it might be hard to know why since there are lots of chistians in the school. But St Jerome on innate principles of moral consciousness is quite a good guide here.

Quote:

I never think of Plato in terms of fallibility/infallibilty. I do consider him an exceptionally wise and influential thinker. The motto of this forum is 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. That to me is a wise statement. Today's 'right' might be tomorrow's 'wrong'. We are always rewriting our morality.

Understood & well said - and maybe the Nurse can rewrite conscience whilst mortal - it is our opportunity - whilst the receptacle shall be ready to publish of that spirit to the soul once life has ended

Quote:

Is conscience fully aligned to soul or is it looking over its shoulder in order to comply or not comply with the current belief systems?

Good question for absolutely anyone - will that depend of whether we are incarnate or cast once again into the great universe at the time ?. If you are a universe with an indefatigable power to obtain pure accuracy about human spirit, - isn't there is going to be a receptacle of each event of such incarnation?. We could refuse to consider the receptacle as the carrier of individual incarnate essences to the eternal soul - but are just being empirical like that ? I find it hard to see an obstacle other than a lack of evidence type.

Personally i'd argue the above is so since no lack of metaphysical logic exists in the instance. Dichotomy is strange sometimes isn't it -is it possible to be sticklers for proof at the cost of metaphysics without even being aware of it ?

I think it is

Quote:

You mentioned Lethe. In the Myth of Er Socrates talks of the man who seemed virtuous but when the Lots were thrown down for his next embodiment he grabbed at the life of a tyrant. "He lived his (previous) life in a well ordered state but owed his goodness to custom and habit and not philosophy" Socrates explained. Lethe is symbolically the river that washes all remembrance of former lives from the newly aspiring soul. Whether one takes this as merely a 'likely story' or as some kind of reality 'prophesied by a seer' is beside the point. The muthos still intends a moment of high seriousness in the soul. "There comes a moment, dear Glaucon, where everything is at stake."

When doing metaphysics no matter who it depends on the forum of group consciousness. We do not know of a state where such wasn't the case since there is no known event of a single human being on this earth - in - isolation - performing them - alone.

Except in the allegory of the cave

Which is an interesting lesson, it ilustrates what metaphysics is all about. But - remember it never happened as all metaphysical exploration has has always been at least 2 humans or en masse. I say that because unless we flip it over as such we miss a huge point of that allegory

In this style of metaphysics it is impossible to deny group consciousness since Plato works with perceptual structures. This means that there simply isn't a way to more than 1 human to function without having perceptual experience in common with another. Therefore - an objective idealism definition is by all its virtue an inescapable vision of the universe - by definition - the man in the cave cannot fail to link with group consciousness IF objective idealism AS a humanity wide shared perceptual structure is correct.

The metaphysical logic stated in TTOF'S means it is impossible that a human in the isolation of a cave would lack insights about the corporeal world outside. He could not know what 'John' @ number 5 is doing, but could would significant forms of the world performing itself or else metaphysics itself is Void.

That was Plato's point and he was deadly serious.

By Lethe they needed to mean inescapable forgetfulness whether it was a trivial set of by words after a naughty symposium or not. If they do not, they violate a universal law that the theory of forms depends on absolutely - no matter how casually tossed in - it was serious.

As for Glaucon - if a serious realization such as a present conscience and its consequences to the rest of the immortal soul is absent - perhaps that is why sense in this world is today. It has little conscience and little insight upon the significance of this perhaps.

Quote:

These are, among others, topics for philosophy, but our world view has altered greatly since the advent of the Enlightenment and that's why terminology needs to be carefully regarded.

Perhaps although - in many ways quality of conscience remains static in the unexplained state Plato left it, and maybe conscience can be compared to something as it has a moral and ethical substance by which to know it so long as human kindness is the fabric of comparisons. To have one of most tend to choose between good & evil.

But - what could be worse conceptually that a universe that is clueless of the origin of innumerable incarnate predicaments with conscience because it does not keep a tab on when they happened - or - i - the universe - has no need to know when thy committed good or evil ?

The precision within the grand universe design which we attempt to discuss in metaphysics shall have limitless ability to place its fragments of Soul, and will know everything about when & where it happened.

Incarnation = Conscience

Immortality of Conscience = Soul

Does not have to be a literal claim toward a cardinal meaning concerning humanity - it only needs to be a good indicator pertaining to a reason to resist evil.

A metaphysical paradigm is of no use by merely becoming successfully at large, - enjoying the goodwill of many thus constitute a truth to the mass. It must show how it might avail what it intends to humankind

If something is indubitably good but isn't doing that - then it is not complete ?

Dear Yuri,
Nice to hear from you again.
You might be right, but I can't see clearly how at the moment. Your description:

Quote:

since each human spirit are fairly clearly described as a humanity worth of individual outposts of the 1 holy spirit - (or ghost).

is one I haven't come across before. Where is it from - or perhaps it is your own?

Shall we clarify this before looking at conscience?

It's interesting that you pose a model to which all humans (as embodied souls) may strive to emulate or fall from. To this extent there seems to be a similarity to parts of Phaedrus which is a kind of precursor to the Cave allegory.

I will try to let go as much as possible my own assumptions here. If you like I can post the original 'thumos' section in Book 4 of Republic and a short sketch of what is in Phaedrus.It might put some common ground between us, or at lest make clear where our thoughts differ.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum